Cofounder of Lead In 30 • Upgrade your leaders • Human resources and leadership development

It was one of the most memorable moments of my career. I was standing in the front of the room finishing a meeting with the top 200 leaders of a large hospital system in the DC area. I handed the microphone to the CEO to close us out. What he said shocked me and has stuck with me for years. After hours of discussion about the culture of his organization of 18,000 people that day he ended the meeting looking into the eyes of his top 200 and saying into the microphone, "I have come to an inconvenient and disgusting conclusion that I am the problem."

That's a direct quote.

He was gone less than two months later. 

He left.

For almost a decade I've traveled the world meeting with leaders of some of the world's biggest companies. Amazon, Walmart, Lockheed Martin, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Cigna, Hormel, BD, Darden Restaurants, Fox, and HCA to name a few. I've averaged 165 flights a year. New York, London, Singapore, Sydney, New Zealand, and a lot of less notable locales have been stops along the way.

Here's what I've learned...

Leaders make or break an organization.

They are the competitive advantage.

Or the anchor sinking the ship.

One leader can change everything. Positively or negatively.

After years of consulting senior executives on their company-wide culture transformation projects I'm now spending all of my time with a smaller group of leaders. Call them executive coaching clients or whatever you want. They are leaders of teams, divisions, business areas, or enterprises that aren't yet who they want to become.

We help successful executives grow their careers through strengthening their leadership effectiveness.

That's the phrase we wrote as we founded our firm.

Perhaps you're that leader who could benefit from our questions, perspective, and proprietary models. Or maybe you know that leader.  

DM me. 

I'd love to chat. 🎯

Russ Hill

Rick Rubin has produced more iconic albums than almost anyone in music history. Red Hot Chili Peppers. Johnny Cash. Kanye West. Jay-Z. But here's what's weird: he barely touches the equipment:

While other producers obsess over mixing boards and effects, Rubin does something completely different. He removes what doesn't matter.

Most producers add layers - more effects, more instruments, more complexity. Rubin does the opposite. He sits in the studio and asks one question on repeat: "What's essential?"

When Johnny Cash wanted to record again late in his career, Rubin didn't pile on production. He stripped everything down to Cash's voice and a guitar. The result? Some of the most powerful recordings of Cash's entire career.

Leaders face the same trap.

When performance lags, the instinct is to add more, more meetings to align the team, more initiatives to drive results, more priorities to cover all bases.

But watch what happens: your directors spend 30 hours a week in meetings. Your team has 12 "top priorities." Nobody can tell you what actually matters most.

The real work gets squeezed into the margins.

Your people don't need another strategy deck. They need you to stop piling on and start cutting away.

Before your next team meeting, try Rubin's question: What's essential? Then remove everything else from the agenda.

If everything feels urgent, nothing is. Russ explores these ideas weekly in his newsletter, offering practical leadership insights that cut through the noise. https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

Cofounder of Lone Rock Leadership • Upgrade your managers • Human resources and leadership development

No alternative text description for this image

Satya Tripathi works on climate transformation with governments worldwide. His teams face goals 26 years away. Here's how he keeps them engaged: 

Make invisible progress visible every single day.
Your team isn't disengaged because they're lazy.
You've tried new tools. Better processes. More frequent check-ins. Nothing moves the needle.

Here's what you're missing: They're disengaged because they can't see progress.

Tripathi discovered that teams working on transformation don't fail because the work is hard. They fail because they can't tell whether they're making progress or just spinning their wheels.

Think about his challenge: How do you keep teams motivated on net-zero emissions by 2050? That's decades away.

His solution? Break that massive goal into quarterly milestones that teams can actually celebrate. Instead of "carbon neutrality by 2050," it becomes "renewable energy at 15% by Q3, 18% by Q4."

Progress becomes visible every 90 days, not every decade.

When teams can see movement, they start believing movement is possible. And belief creates momentum.

This applies to every transformation project. Your culture change initiative feels stuck, not because people don't care, but because they can't see that last month's leadership training actually shifted any behaviors. Your digital transformation drags not because the technology is hard, but because nobody can point to what's actually different today versus 90 days ago.

Most leaders lose people on transformation initiatives, not because the vision is wrong, but because progress feels invisible.

Here's how to fix it:

Instead of "Improve customer satisfaction," track "Response time under 2 hours" and display it daily. Instead of "Build a learning culture," count "Cross-team knowledge shares per week" and celebrate the number going up. Instead of quarterly progress reviews, create weekly wins that everyone can see.

The goal isn't just measurement. It's making progress so obvious that belief becomes automatic.

If people can't see movement, they stop believing it's happening.

This invisibility problem shows up everywhere in leadership. We explore it every week on Lead In 30's podcast with leaders who've cracked the code on creating clarity and momentum. Get access here: https://lnkd.in/d_-Knwhy

Most leaders think confidence comes from being the loudest voice in the room. Admiral Michelle Howard proved them wrong for 36 years. Here's what she understood about leadership:

When Howard took command of Combined Task Force 151 in 2009, she faced one of the highest-pressure situations in modern naval history.

Somali pirates had captured Captain Richard Phillips. The world was watching. Every decision mattered.

Howard didn't dominate the room. She didn't over-explain her choices to prove she belonged. She gathered input quickly, decided clearly, and moved on.

The rescue succeeded. Phillips came home.

This wasn't luck. It was a pattern Howard had perfected throughout her career, from commanding USS Rushmore to becoming the first female four-star admiral in U.S. Navy history.

She understood something most leaders get backwards.

Teams don't need perfect decisions. They need clear ones.

Indecision drains energy faster than a wrong call ever will. When you hesitate, your team hesitates. When you second-guess yourself publicly, they second-guess everything.

The pressure to appear confident makes managers over-explain. They think more words equal more authority. They dominate conversations to prove they know what they're doing.

Howard did the opposite. She listened intently, processed quickly, then committed fully.

No hedging. No endless justification. No need to be the smartest person speaking.

Just clarity followed by action.

This creates something more valuable than being right. It creates momentum. Teams that move forward together, even when the path isn't perfect, outperform teams paralyzed by indecision every single time.

The real confidence play isn't about volume. It's about velocity.

Know when to listen. Know when to decide. Know when to move.

Leadership confidence doesn't come from volume. It comes from clarity.

If you want to strengthen your decision-making discipline, check out the Lead In 30 Podcast. Real conversations about the leadership competencies that actually move teams forward.

Sara Blakely's father asked her one question at dinner every night: "What did you fail at today?" If she had nothing, he was disappointed...

That question reframed failure entirely. Not as shame, but as proof she was learning and pushing boundaries.

This wasn't just dinner table philosophy.

When Sara started Spanx, she built this into her company culture. Early employees remember her asking in team meetings: "What experiment failed this week?"

When a product prototype flopped, she'd gather the team to dissect the learning, not assign blame. One failed adhesive test led to their breakthrough backless body shaper design.

The failure itself became the innovation catalyst.

Most leaders do the opposite. They punish mistakes, avoid risk, and wonder why their teams play it safe.

I've watched talented managers freeze when asked to pitch new ideas in companies where one mistake meant being sidelined. They had brilliant solutions but wouldn't risk proposing them.

The company lost innovations that could have doubled revenue simply because fear was more powerful than ambition.

Here's the truth: if people are afraid to fail, they'll never fully commit.

They'll hedge, they'll wait for perfect conditions, they'll do just enough to avoid criticism. Innovation doesn't come from people trying not to mess up.

It comes from people willing to experiment, learn fast, and adjust.

Leaders who normalize failure unlock that. But most don't know where to start.

Try these 3 shifts:

First, in 1-on-1s, ask "What did you try this week that didn't work?" and genuinely celebrate the attempt.

Second, in team meetings, share a failure of your own from that week and what you learned. Your vulnerability gives others permission.

Third, create a "failure board" where people post experiments that flopped but taught something valuable. Make it visible. Make it normal.

When failure becomes safe, commitment becomes possible.
When commitment becomes possible, real growth happens.

If you found this valuable, repost for your network ♻️

Join the 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly email newsletter: https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

Lead with impact.

In the early 2000s, Ralph Hauenstein watched competitor after competitor abandon American manufacturing for cheaper overseas production.

As CEO of Red Wing Shoes, he faced mounting pressure from the board: offshore production, cut costs by 40%, and finally compete on price with imported brands.

The spreadsheets made the case undeniable.
He refused anyway.

Hauenstein understood what the spreadsheets couldn't capture: Red Wing's bootmakers had decades of institutional knowledge.

They knew how different leathers behaved, how stitching patterns affected durability, how to spot quality issues before they became customer problems.

Moving production overseas meant losing craftspeople who'd spent 20-30 years mastering their trade. That expertise couldn't be replicated in a factory optimizing for cost per unit.

The payoff took years to materialize, but it was definitive.

While competitors who offshored saw their brand value erode and struggled with quality control issues from distant factories, Red Wing maintained premium pricing power and cultivated customers who'd buy nothing else.

Employee turnover at their Minnesota plant remained below 5% annually - unheard of in manufacturing - because workers took genuine pride in their craft.

The brand survived multiple recessions while offshored competitors folded or were acquired at fire-sale prices.

Every leader faces this same calculation in different forms.

Most leaders think in quarters. Leaders who actually deliver think in decades.

My latest book, Deliver: Why Some Leaders Get Results And Most Don't breaks down how to make decisions that compound over time instead of cannibalizing your future. If you're tired of short-term thinking sabotaging long-term results, this is your playbook. Get it here: https://lnkd.in/eaiPFZhw

Niki Lauda pulled into the pit during the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix. The world championship was on the line. He stepped out and walked away. Here's why his greatest leadership moment was choosing to lose:

Weeks earlier, Lauda survived a crash at the German Grand Prix that left him with severe burns and lung damage, making his return to racing genuinely heroic.

But his greatest leadership moment wasn't the comeback - it was this withdrawal, the moment he refused to race when everyone expected him to push through.

The conditions were brutal with near-zero visibility. While competitors risked their lives in the dangerous rain, Lauda made a different call.

Not because he was afraid. Because the risk didn't justify the reward.

He lost the championship by a single point. And kept something more valuable: his judgment.

Real leadership courage isn't always about pushing through - sometimes it's about stopping when everyone expects you to continue.

We glorify the grind, the relentless push, the leader who never quits. But this narrative pressures leaders to launch products in wrong market conditions, push teams past their breaking point, or continue strategies that no longer make sense simply because stopping feels like failure.

Disciplined judgment requires a different kind of courage - the courage to say "not under these conditions" when the pressure to proceed is overwhelming.

Most leaders fail here not because they lack determination, but because they confuse reckless persistence with strength. They push through product launches when customer feedback screams "not ready," continue with hiring when culture fit is clearly wrong, or double down on strategies when market conditions have fundamentally changed.

Think about the CEO who launches despite clear signals because "we've already invested too much." Or the manager who pushes a burned-out team through another sprint because "we can't miss the deadline."

The pressure to proceed often overwhelms the judgment to stop.

Lauda's decision reveals what separates disciplined judgment from reckless persistence: knowing when the risk is no longer proportional to the reward, when you don't have the critical information you need, and when pushing through will compromise something more valuable than winning.

This kind of judgment doesn't develop by accident. It requires a framework for making decisions under pressure, for distinguishing between momentary discomfort and genuine danger signals, for having the courage to protect what matters most.

If you're ready to build the judgment and clarity that transforms your leadership in 30 days, check out Lead In 30. 

Want more research-backed insights on leadership?
Join 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly newsletter:
👉 https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

People don't follow vision statements. They follow what leaders reinforce through action. Here's why some leaders get results while others struggle:

You can launch a new culture initiative every quarter. Hold town halls about your values. Put inspirational posters in every conference room.

But if you excuse the leader who yells, protect the top performer who refuses to collaborate, or ignore the executive who talks strategy but micromanages execution, your team knows what you actually value.

And it's not what's on the poster.

I watched this play out at a tech company last year. The CEO launched a "radical transparency" initiative with company-wide emails, new Slack channels, and monthly AMAs. Everyone nodded along.

Then an executive made a major product decision behind closed doors. No input, no discussion, just an announcement.

When teams pushed back, the CEO defended it as "moving fast."
Within 3 months, the transparency initiative was dead. Not because the CEO killed it officially, but because everyone saw what actually mattered when stakes were high.

The gap between the announcement and the reinforcement told them everything.

Dara Treseder built her leadership reputation at companies like Peloton and Autodesk by understanding one truth most executives miss: credibility isn't built in town halls or strategy decks.

When she talked about customer obsession, she sat in on customer service calls. When she championed diversity, she changed her own hiring process first. When she pushed for bold creative work, she publicly backed ideas that made stakeholders uncomfortable.

Her teams watched what she reinforced, not just what she announced. That's why they trusted her when transformation got hard.

Here's what some miss: their teams aren't watching the all-hands deck. They're watching what gets rewarded, what gets ignored, and what gets excused.

The manager who preaches accountability in team meetings but quietly protects the underperformer because "they've been here a long time." Their team learns that tenure matters more than results.

The executive who champions transparency but makes strategic decisions in closed-door sessions with favorites. Their organization learns that access matters more than merit.

The leader who demands urgency but tolerates the same deadlines sliding month after month. Their team learns that timelines are suggestions, not commitments.

In every case, the behavior speaks louder than the words.

And teams always believe the behavior.

Next time you're in a leadership meeting, watch what gets excused versus what gets addressed. Watch which behaviors get rewarded and which get consequences.

The patterns you reinforce when nobody's watching tell your team everything they need to know about what actually matters.

Check out my new book: Deliver: Why Some Leaders Get Results and Most Don't, which breaks down the complete execution system: https://lnkd.in/eaiPFZhw

José Mourinho was fired by Chelsea. Twice. Then they won the league using the exact system he built. Here's why the best leaders build systems that outlive them:

Mourinho has coached elite football clubs across Europe. Players respect him, but warmth? Not his thing.

Yet his teams consistently perform at the highest levels.
The reason isn't charisma or inspiration. It's something most leaders completely miss.

When Mourinho joined Inter Milan in 2008, the first thing he did was assign every player a specific "battle role." Not positions. Roles.

Defenders knew their exact coverage zones. Midfielders had defined pressing triggers. Even the striker knew his defensive responsibilities.

Players hated the rigidity at first.
But within 6 months, Inter won their first Champions League in 45 years.

Here's what actually happened: ambiguity was eliminated.

Most leaders say "We need better communication." Mourinho defines exactly what communication looks like. When X happens, you do Y. No interpretation needed.

Most leaders say "Give 110%." Mourinho sets the standard differently. You complete these 3 drills at this speed. Anything less, you're benched.

The difference? His team knows the exact gap between current and expected.

This isn't about being difficult. It's about creating conditions where performance becomes unavoidable.

Most leaders get this backwards. They work on motivation when the real problem is confusion.

If your team doesn't know what success looks like, inspiration won't save you. If expectations shift daily, effort gets wasted on the wrong things.

Clarity eliminates guesswork. It lets people focus energy on execution instead of interpretation.

This clarity-first approach is the foundation of my Lead In 30 leadership training, which has helped managers at Amazon, Walmart, and Lockheed Martin transform how their teams deliver results.

Want to build systems that make performance unavoidable? Let's talk about bringing this framework to your team.

Want more research-backed insights on leadership?
Join 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly newsletter:
https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

Everyone celebrates James Dyson's 5,000 prototypes as a story about grit. They're missing what actually happened. And it's costing their team's progress every single day.

Most people hear the number 5,000 and think it proves the power of perseverance in the face of adversity. But that completely misses the point of what happened in Dyson's workshop.

Dyson didn't succeed because he refused to give up. He succeeded because he built a system where failure was expected, documented, and converted into forward motion.

Here's what that actually looked like: 
Each prototype got numbered, photographed, and analyzed. What worked? What didn't? Why? Every morning, those insights informed the next build. Prototype 1,247 wasn't a setback. It was the data that made 1,248 possible.

This is strategic persistence. Everything else is just stubbornness with better PR.

The difference matters more than most leaders realize.

Stubborn persistence keeps doing the same thing, hoping for different results. Strategic persistence builds a process that makes progress inevitable.

Your team doesn't need another speech about grit. They need you to build what Dyson built, a system where failure moves them forward instead of sideways.

That means creating environments where failure produces insights instead of fear. Where mistakes get reviewed in Monday morning standups instead of being hidden in desk drawers. Where progress compounds through documented learning instead of evaporating when someone quits.

Most leaders accidentally design the opposite. They punish failure, reward risk aversion, and wonder why innovation dies.

Dyson created conditions where 5,000 failures led somewhere. Your job is doing the same for your team.

The problem isn't your team's commitment. It's whether you've designed a system that turns their effort into actual outcomes.

If you're ready to stop relying on grit and start designing environments where your team's progress is inevitable, let's talk.

Want more research-backed insights on leadership?
Join 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly newsletter:
https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

Franz Humer built a $50B pharma empire by doing the opposite of every competitor. While they rushed drugs to market, he slowed down. Here's why his "overcautious" approach destroyed the competition:

As Roche CEO from 1998-2008, Humer made a move that shocked Wall Street.

When competitors like Pfizer accelerated cardiovascular drugs to market after minimal trials, Humer insisted on 3 additional years of safety validation for Roche's competing drug.

Analysts called him overcautious. Short-term, Roche lost market share.

But 18 months after competitor launches, safety issues emerged. Two rival drugs were pulled from market. Roche's delayed entry became the category leader, capturing 40% market share that held for a decade.

The extra validation protected 50,000+ patients from adverse events. More importantly, it built physician trust that no marketing budget could buy.

Humer used 3 criteria to decide when slowing down was strategic:
1. High irreversibility - decisions that couldn't be easily undone (drug safety, M&A)
2. Trust stakes - situations where credibility was the real asset at risk  
3. Information asymmetry - when competitors knew less than they thought they did

When all 3 aligned, he'd invest months or years others wouldn't. When they didn't, he moved fast.

This wasn't about being slow. It was about being deliberate where it mattered most.

Most leaders get this backwards. They rush decisions that should be slowed and overthink choices that need speed.

On the Lead In 30 Podcast, I explore how leaders develop judgment about decision velocity. If you're ready to build frameworks that actually work, explore Lead In 30 at https://lnkd.in/d_-Knwhy

Most leaders push harder when results lag. They add meetings and tighten deadlines. Matthew Walker's research at UC Berkeley shows this approach systematically destroys the capabilities you need to execute. 

Walker founded UC Berkeley's Center for Human Sleep Science, where his team uses brain imaging and cognitive testing to document what happens when exhausted teams try to perform. The findings expose why "just push harder" backfires at a biological level.

Sleep deprivation doesn't just make people tired. It dismantles the three core capacities leaders depend on for execution.

Decision quality collapses first.

Walker's 2002 Harvard experiment had participants learn complex keyboard sequences. Those who slept between training and re-testing improved their performance significantly. Those who stayed awake plateaued or declined.

Now map that to your Monday morning strategy session after everyone worked through the weekend. You're deciding whether to pivot your product roadmap, restructure your team, or double down on your current approach. 

Walker's research suggests these decisions are biologically compromised before the meeting starts. The strategic clarity you think you're getting might just be exhausted brains defaulting to familiar patterns instead of evaluating new information objectively.

Emotional regulation fails next.

When your people are running on empty, psychological safety evaporates. Small frustrations become conflicts. 

Constructive feedback feels like personal attacks. The trust required for real alignment breaks down in ways that look like engagement problems but are actually energy problems.

Walker's research shows sleep deprivation impairs memory consolidation and cognitive function. Your team can't adapt to market feedback, can't internalize lessons from failed experiments, can't integrate new processes or skills. The very learning required to improve execution becomes impossible when people are too drained to form new neural pathways.

So what does sustainable execution actually look like?

Start by treating energy as a strategic resource, not a personal responsibility. If your project timeline assumes 60-hour weeks, you're planning for degraded decision-making and compromised learning. Build recovery time into execution plans the same way you build in budget buffers.

Second, watch for the exhaustion signals Walker's research identified. Increased irritability in meetings that used to be productive. Slower adoption of new processes. More rework on decisions made late in the day or week.  

Third, stop treating sustained exhaustion as a sign of commitment. When your team is running on fumes, you're not getting discretionary effort. You're getting degraded execution disguised as hustle.

I explore these overlooked execution realities every week in my newsletter. Subscribe at https://lnkd.in/gsb3qeCF for weekly insights on the human factors that quietly sabotage your team's execution.

Lorne Michaels has run SNL for decades with one non-negotiable rule. "The show doesn't go on because it's ready. It goes on because it's 11:30." Here's why standards beat motivation every single time:

Most leaders exhaust themselves trying to inspire their teams.
They craft motivational emails, deliver pep talks before big launches, and scramble to boost morale when energy dips.

But here's what they miss: motivation is an emotion, and emotions fade. Standards are systems, and systems sustain performance even when inspiration runs dry.

Michaels doesn't waste energy motivating writers to be funny every Saturday. Instead, he holds one unwavering standard: the show airs at 11:30, ready or not.

When you know the curtain rises regardless of how prepared you feel, everything changes. Writers can't hide behind perfectionism. Producers can't delay tough calls. The entire team operates with clarity about what matters, shipping the show beats perfecting the show.

That's how you sustain excellence for 48 seasons.

The same principle applies in every organization, even if you're not producing live television. The question isn't whether you have standards, it's whether you're actually enforcing them.

Your standards aren't what you say in meetings. They're what you tolerate when nobody's watching.

When you accept work that misses the mark without feedback, your team learns that quality is negotiable. When deadlines slip without consequence, they learn that urgency doesn't matter. When you ignore behavior that undermines the team, you're teaching everyone that culture is just a poster on the wall.

Your people aren't confused; they're watching what you actually enforce versus what you claim to value.

Setting clear standards isn't tyrannical. It's generous.

When your team knows exactly what success looks like and what won't be tolerated, they can focus their energy on execution instead of guessing what you want.

So identify your 11:30 moments. What are the non-negotiables that everything else revolves around? Make them simple enough that a new hire could recite them. Then hold them consistently, especially when it's uncomfortable, because that's when your real standards reveal themselves.

The quality of your standards determines the quality of your results.

I explore leadership principles like this every week in my newsletter. If you want practical insights that challenge conventional wisdom and give you real tools for leading better, join the 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly email newsletter: https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

Lead with impact.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, you're probably doing your job right. Most leaders think constant repetition means they're failing to communicate. But here's what Vince Lombardi knew that changed everything:

He won 5 NFL championships by drilling the same fundamentals, blocking, tackling, discipline, in every single practice. Before the 1961 season, his veteran players complained they'd heard the blocking lecture 100 times.

Lombardi's response? "Then you'll hear it 100 more until it's instinct, not thought."

That season, the Packers went 11-3 and won the championship. Their offensive line allowed fewer sacks than any team in the league, not because they learned new techniques, but because the basics became muscle memory.

Here's what Lombardi understood that most leaders miss: your team hasn't heard it enough if you're tired of saying it.

Research shows people need to hear a message 7 times before it influences behavior. Leaders typically say it twice and move on.

The disconnect? You've internalized the vision, priorities, and standards. Your team is hearing them for the first time, processing while multitasking, or filtering through their own priorities.

What actually deserves repetition:

• The 2-3 outcomes that define success this quarter
• The non-negotiable standards that separate good from great
• The decision-making principles when choices aren't obvious

The difference between productive repetition and nagging? Productive repetition reinforces what matters until it becomes reflex. Nagging focuses on trivial details that don't move the needle.

Great leaders don't apologize for reinforcing what matters. They lean into it.

On the Lead In 30 podcast, I break down how the best leaders master this skill, knowing what to repeat, when to repeat it, and how to make it stick. If you're ready to stop second-guessing your leadership and start reinforcing what matters, listen wherever you get your podcasts: https://lnkd.in/d_-Knwhy

Edwin Land invented instant photography and built Polaroid into a $3 billion icon. At their peak, they owned instant photography. Then they filed for bankruptcy while everyone still loved the brand. Here's why:

Land dismissed digital photography as inferior technology. Technically true, but strategically fatal.

While he obsessed over perfecting instant film chemistry, the market shifted beneath him. His brilliance blinded him to market reality.

The vision was extraordinary, but execution lagged. Competitors overtook them. This reveals something most leaders miss.

Results don't fail because you lack vision. They fail because you don't build execution discipline around that vision.

The problem is vision work feels important. Strategy sessions, big ideas, inspiring the team. It's exciting. It gets buy-in.

Execution is different.

It's weekly pipeline reviews where you ask why the numbers missed. It's the uncomfortable conversation about accountability. It's killing a pet project that looked great in the strategy deck but isn't delivering results.

It's unglamorous. It requires sustained discipline, not one-time inspiration.
And it's where most leaders fall short.

Here's the diagnostic: Track your calendar for one week.

How many hours on strategy and vision? How many on execution review and accountability?

Most leaders discover a 10:1 ratio. The best reverse it.

If you're spending more time wordsmithing the strategy deck than reviewing weekly execution metrics, you've already fallen into Land's trap.

Vision meetings feel productive. Execution meetings feel tedious. That's exactly why execution is where most leaders fail.

Because every leader has vision. Few master execution.

Execution discipline has three non-negotiables: Clear metrics everyone understands. Weekly accountability rhythms that surface problems early. The courage to kill good ideas that aren't delivering results.

My new book: Deliver: Why Some Leaders Get Results, And Most Don't, gives you the frameworks to build execution discipline around your vision. Get it here: https://lnkd.in/eaiPFZhw

Most leaders think strength means making the call. The strongest ones know when they're not the one who should.

University of Chicago philosopher Agnes Callard writes about "transformative decisions", choices where you can't fully grasp the outcome until after you've committed. 

Her insight cuts straight to a leadership blind spot: sometimes you lack the perspective to make the call, and recognizing that takes more maturity than pushing through anyway.

I watched this play out with a VP I coached last year.

Her CEO asked her to decide whether to shut down an underperforming product line, one she'd never worked on directly. She had the authority. She had the data. The spreadsheets screamed "kill it."

But she recognized something crucial.

The team closest to that product understood customer relationships she couldn't see in the numbers. They knew which accounts were about to convert, which features were breaking through. She had analytical distance. They had lived experience.

She didn't lack confidence. She lacked the transformative knowledge you only gain by living inside the problem.

So she didn't decide. She asked the product team to present their recommendation with full context, then backed their call.

Three months later, two of those "about to convert" accounts closed deals worth more than the entire product line's previous year revenue.

Decision discipline means asking three questions before you decide:

1. Do I have current, lived experience with this problem?
2. Is someone closer to it better positioned to see what I can't?
3. Will my decision override knowledge I don't possess?

If the answer to all three is yes, your job isn't to decide. It's to empower the person who should.

That's not weakness. That's leadership maturity.

This is the kind of decision discipline we explore on Lead In 30, not just when to decide, but when to let others lead the call. Listen wherever you get your podcasts: https://lnkd.in/d_-Knwhy

Most execution problems aren't skill gaps. They're awareness gaps. Here's what decades of research reveal about why capable teams underperform:

Your team just missed another deadline.
Again.

You've invested in training. Upgraded your project management tools. Held more accountability meetings. 

Nothing changed.

Psychologist Ellen Langer spent decades studying why capable people underperform. What she discovered wasn't about skill or effort at all.

It was about awareness.

Langer ran experiments where people performed identical tasks. The only variable: whether they were consciously aware of what they were doing or operating on habit.

The awareness group outperformed the autopilot group consistently. Same skills. Same training. Different mental state.

Think about your last team meeting. How much of it ran on autopilot? Same agenda structure, same discussion patterns, same outcomes you've had for months.

When leaders run meetings on habit rather than intention, their teams disengage. Not because the meeting structure is wrong, but because the leader isn't actually present.

That's what kills execution.

Breaking autopilot requires one simple practice: Before your next team interaction, pause for 30 seconds.

Ask yourself what outcome you actually want from this specific conversation. Not what you usually want. What matters right now.

That 30-second reset separates leaders who get results from those who wonder why execution keeps failing despite their best efforts.

Want weekly insights on leading with intention instead of habit? Subscribe to my newsletter where I break down what actually drives execution and results: https://lnkd.in/gsb3qeCF

When Frances Hesselbein was asked about her legacy leading Girl Scouts from 250,000 to 2.3 million members, she never mentioned the growth numbers.

Never talked about the 300+ programs she launched.
Never cited the diversity initiatives that transformed the organization.
She talked about the leaders who emerged under her watch.

One of those leaders was Frances Hesselbein herself before becoming CEO. Another went on to lead major nonprofits. Others became executives at Fortune 500 companies.
 
Hesselbein didn't just run an organization. She built a leadership factory.

Here's what she did differently.
Every week, she asked herself three questions: Who did I develop today? Who is ready for more responsibility? Who needs coaching to step up?

She tracked people development as rigorously as others tracked revenue.

Most leaders track deliverables. Hesselbein tracked something else: how many of her team members went on to lead other organizations.

She measured leadership by multiplication, not addition.

When one of your team members gets promoted to lead elsewhere, that's proof your leadership is working. When they credit you for their success, that's your real ROI.

Ask yourself: How many of your direct reports could step into your role tomorrow? How many have been promoted since working for you? How many leaders have they developed?

Those numbers matter more than your quarterly targets.

Because your true results aren't in a spreadsheet. They're walking around, leading others, multiplying your impact long after you've moved on.

Most leaders know this matters but don't have a system for it.

Lead In 30 gives you the frameworks to become the leader people grow under. Not in years.  

Want more research-backed insights on leadership?
Join 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly newsletter:
👉 https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

taplio